HE 


UC-NRLF 


SSfi 


LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


Class 


BLIC  SAFETY  AND  THE 
INTERURBAN  ROAD 


vs. 


THE  RAILROAD  MONOPOLY 
IN   MASSACHUSETTS 

By  HOWARD  C.  FORBES 


THIS  is  the  crucial  year  in  the  existence 
of  the  Railroad  Monopoly  in  Massachu- 
setts. High  speed  electric  railways  will 
give  the  people  rapid  transit  to  greater 
distances.  Shall  these  electric  railways  be 
suppressed  in  the  interest  of  the  Railroad 
Monopoly  ?  That  is  the  real  question. 

Also,  Public  Safety  is  at  stake.  High  speed 
interurban  railways,  properly  built,  are 
safe.  High  speed  upon  street  railways 
produces  most  hazardous  conditions.  Al- 
ready the  accidents  upon  street  railways 
are  beyond  all  reason.  The  question  of 
the  transportation  of  passengers  under 
safe  or  unsafe  conditions  confronts  us. 


Price  15  Cents 


PRINTED  BY  THE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS,  CAMBRIDGE,  U.  S.  A. 
1905 


THE  Railroads  propose  to  suppress  rapid 
transit  by  electric  railways  in  two  ways: 
first,  by  owning  them;  second,  by  occu- 
pying the  field  with  slow  railways  which 
never  can  give  rapid  transit.  Either  way 
they  win.  But  in  this  plan,  Public  Safety 
is  omitted. 

1.  The   Railroads  propose  to  own  the  electric 

railways  through  the  so-called  "Merger" 
bill,  which  would  directly  authorize  it. 
The  real  value  of  this  bill,  however,  is 
the  State  sanction  that  it  would  give  in 
extending  their  Monopoly  to  the  electric 
railways. 

2.  The  Railroads  propose  to  prevent  rapid  transit 

on  electric  railways  by  the  so-called  "  little 
bill/'  which  would  allow  street  railways 
to  run  on  private  land.  This  would  con- 
fine electric  railway  development  to  street 
railways  running  partly  upon  private  right- 
of-way,  and  would  produce  the  hazardous 
conditions  of  high  speed  upon  street  rail- 
ways. Thereby,  rapid  transit  would  be 
prevented.  Instead,  we  should  have  high 
speed  cars  with  slow  running  time. 


T 


HE  Railroads  are  face  to  face  with  a 
situation  which  has  but  one  of  two 
outcomes,  —  either  competition  in  rapid 
transit  must  arise  from  the  electric 
interurban  railways,  or  the  Railroad 
Monopoly  must  be  complete.  Railroad 
Monopoly  versus  rapid  transit  by  elec- 
tric cars  is  the  main  contest. 


But  the  main  contest  is  obscured  by  the 
clamor  of  a  smaller  contest  among  a 
few  syndicates,  over  a  local  situation, 
as  to  which  shall  have  the  privilege  of 
selling  the  franchise  to  the  Railroads. 
This  sub-contest  is  shown  in  the  re- 
ports of  the  committee  on  street  rail- 
ways— minority  and  majority  —  of  the 
last  Legislature,  which  are  appended. 

The  following  argument  takes  up  the  merits 
of  this  whole  question,  and  shows  that 
Public  Safety  is  the  most  important 
issue,  and  that  the  Railroad  Monopoly 
should  not  be  extended. 


TO  THE  SPECIAL  JOINT  COMMITTEE 
ON  RAILROADS  AND  STREET  RAIL- 
WAYS 

MR.  CHAIRMAN:  —  It  is  now  some  years  since  I 
began  to  feel  that  the  railway  laws  of  Massachusetts 
were,  perhaps,  not  the  great  public  boon  that  they 
were  supposed  to  be.  As  electric  railways  have  de- 
veloped, I  have  been  more  and  more  impressed  with 
the  artificial  conditions  which  these  laws  have  pro- 
duced, and  with  their  general  detriment  to  the  best 
public  interest.  This  committee  has  been  appointed 
for  the  specific  purpose  of  revising  the  general  laws 
relating  to  railroads  and  street  railways,  so  that  they 
may  better  serve  the  public  interest.  I  desire,  there- 
fore, to  present  to  this  committee  my  views  on  one 
aspect  of  these  laws,  —  their  relation  to  the  inter- 
urban  electric  railway. 

My  proposition  is  simple.  We  want  in  the  further 
development  of  our  railways  Public  Safety,  Rapid 
Transit,  and  Progress.  The  people  should  be  car- 
ried with  the  greatest  degree  of  safety  that  is  pos- 
sible. The  modern  demand  for  rapid  transit  should 
be  supplied  by  a  genuine  rapid  transit,  as  distin- 
guished from  high-speed  cars  with  slow-running 
time.  And  we  want  the  greatest  opportunity  for 
progress.  We  want  a  progress  that  at  least  will 
keep  pace  with  progress  in  transportation  elsewhere. 
That  the  realization  of  such  obvious  public  benefits 
is  simply  a  question  of  proper  laws,  which  will  en- 
courage the  natural  development  in  electric  trans- 
portation, —  the  interurban  railway,  —  I  hope  to 
make  plain  to  you. 


4  PUBLIC    SAFETY   vs. 

The  Possibilities  of  the  Interurban  Railway 

The  interurban  railway  is  a  new  kind  of  passenger 
transportation.  We  have  developed  street  railways, 
which  are  primarily  for  the  streets;  and  railroads, 
for  high  speed  on  private  right-of-way.  And  now 
another  class  of  transportation  has  arisen,  —  the  in- 
terurban road.  As  the  name  implies,  it  runs  from  a 
point  in  one  city  to  a  point  in  another  city,  in  dis- 
tinction from  the  street  railway,  which  runs  through 
all  the  city  streets  and  into  the  suburbs.  It  combines 
the  service  of  the  railroads  and  the  service  of  the 
street  railways.  It  runs  at  high  speed  on  private 
right-of-way  like  the  railroads;  and  it  gives  cars  at 
frequent  intervals,  stopping  on  signal  from  passen- 
gers, at  low  rates  of  fare,  like  the  street  railways. 
It  operates  by  electricity.  Such,  then,  is  the  inter- 
urban road  as  we  know  it  to-day. 

To  make  clear  that  the  possibilities  for  public 
safety,  rapid  transit,  and  progress  are  greater  on  the 
interurban  road  than  on  the  street  railways,  and  even 
greater  than  on  the  steam  railroad.s,  I  have  but  to 
direct  your  attention  to  a  few  obvious  considerations. 
The  interurban  road,  properly  constructed  on  private 
land,  away  from  the  travel  of  the  street,  will  be  free 
from  a  large  class  of  street  accidents.  On  private 
right-of-way  the  tracks  need  not  follow  our  crooked 
streets,  and  hence  can  run  with  fewer  curves  than 
the  street  railways.  This  should  eliminate  a  large 
class  of  collisions  which  are  due  to  blind  curves.  In 
fact,  the  tracks  of  the  interurban  roads  can  be  kept 
nearer  straight  than  the  tracks  of  the  steam  rail- 
roads. Long  freight  and  passenger  trains  require 
a  comparatively  level  track.  To  secure  this  the  steam 
railroads  must  wind  in  and  out  among  the  hills  so 
that  the  maximum  grade  shall  not  exceed  2%.  The 
electric  cars,  single  or  in  short  trains,  with  a  motor 


RAILROAD    MONOPOLY  5 

on  every  axle  and  every  wheel  pushing,  can  go  over 
the  hills  taking  grades  of  5  %  or  more.  Thus  they 
can  secure  more  nearly  a  straight  line,  and  therefore 
fewer  curves,  than  the  steam  railroads.  Again,  in 
the  matter  of  grade  crossings:  there  are  some  nine- 
teen hundred  grade  crossings  in  Massachusetts  on 
the  steam  railroads.  On  the  interurban  roads  there 
should  he  none. 

Now  I  have  long  held  a  principle  for  the  safe 
operation  of  railways,  which  is  but  an  adaptation  of 
the  principles  of  safety  that  are  common  in  engineer- 
ing practice.  In  engineering  practice,  for  instance, 
a  power  station  is  so  designed  that  it  cannot  be  shut 
down  by  a  failure  in  any  one  place.  We  protect 
the  incomes  of  corporations  by  duplicate  methods  of 
safety  why  not  the  passengers?  And  so  it  seems 
reasonable  to  provide  in  the  transportation  of  pas- 
sengers duplicate  and  independent  safeguards  against 
accidents.  The  first  and  most  important  of  these 
safeguards  involves  the  question  of  a  straight  track. 
The  track  should  be  kept  so  straight  that  the  motor- 
man  can  see  ahead  at  every  point  to  a  distance  in 
which  he  can  stop  his  car  without  fail.  And  the 
second  safeguard  is  the  automatic  block  signal. 
Here,  then,  we  have  two  safeguards  which  are  totally 
different  in  character,  each  complete  in  itself,  and 
absolutely  independent.  The  first  depends  entirely 
upon  human  agency,  actuated  by  the  strongest  of 
impulses,  that  of  self-preservation,  with  mistake  and 
f orgetfulness  eliminated.  The  engineer  sees  the  train 
ahead  of  him,  and  he  has  sufficient  space  in  which  to 
stop.  There  is  no  chance  of  mistake;  there  is 
nothing  to  forget.  He  will  stop  his  train  as  usual. 
The  block-signal  system  should  be  entirely  free  from 
human  agency,  depending  solely  upon  mechanical 
devices  which  will  stop  the  train  automatically  when 
it  approaches  within  a  mile  or  two  of  another  train. 


6  PUBLIC    SAFETY   vs. 

This  duplicate  system  of  safety,  supplemented  by  the 
usual  safety  devices,  would  be  a  method  by  which 
railway  accidents  might  be  reduced. 

Such  a  duplicate  method  of  safety  can  be  applied 
to  the  interurban  road's.  Let  us  see  to  what  extent 
it  might  be  applied  to  the  steam  railroads.  The 
steam  railroads  are  now  operated,  by  what  is  known  as 
the  "  Train-Dispatcher  "  system.  The  movements  of 
the  trains  are  directed  by  the  train  dispatcher,  —  a 
man  who  receives  at  his  office  all  information,  calcu- 
lates how  the  trains  shall  proceed,  and  where  they 
shall  meet,  —  or,  on  a  double-track  road,  where  the 
passenger  trains  shall  pass  the  freight  trains,  —  issues 
his  orders,  which  are  transmitted  to  the  agents,  re- 
ceived and  signed  for  by  the  engineer  and  con- 
ductor, repeated  to  the  train  dispatcher,  and  receive 
his  "  O.  K."  This  system  depends  solely  upon  human 
agencies.  Obviously  it  has  the  possibilities  of  mis- 
take in  calculation  of  the  position  of  trains,  mistake 
in  transmission  of  orders,  mistake  in  understanding 
orders,  and  forgetfulness.  As  a  system  of  securing 
railroad  intelligence  it  is  adequate  and  probably  neces- 
sary. But  as  mistakes  and  forgetfulness  are  inherent 
in  human  nature,  so  is  the  train-dispatcher  system,  in 
spite  of  its  repetitions,  sooner  or  later,  bound  to  fail. 
How  often  it  does  fail  we  may  not  know.  There  is 
not  necessarily  an  accident  every  time.  The  trains 
may  have  met  in  a  place  where  the  track  was  straight. 
A  recent  accident  in  Ohio  illustrates  the  possibilities 
for  mistake.  The  press  report  states :  — 

"...  The  wreck,  according  to  the  officials  of  the  company, 
was  due  to  a  misunderstanding  of  orders,  or  a  neglect  to  obey 
them,  on  the  part  of  the  crew  of  the  freight  train.  .  .  .  Presi- 
dent Caniff  .  .  .  stated  that,  from  information  in  the  hands 
of  the  officials,  the  freight-train  crew  had  orders  to  go  on  the 
siding  at  Kishman  and  there  await  the  passing  of  a  passenger 
train.  Why  this  was  not  done  in  time  to  permit  the  passenger 


RAILROAD    MONOPOLY  7 

train  to  go  by,  or  a  flagman  sent  out,  has  not  yet  been  learned. 
...  It  is  said  that  the  watch  of  the  engineer  of  the  freight 
train  was  slow,  and  that  the  engineer  believed  he  had  eight  min- 
utes to  get  his  train  on  the  siding  before  the  passenger  train 
was  due.  The  freight  train  had  slackened  speed  and  was  about 
to  back  in  on  the  siding  from  the  main  track  when  the  passen- 
ger came  tearing  along  at  the  rate  of  forty-five  miles  an  hour 
and  da'shed  into  it.  .  .  .  "  —  Boston  Herald,  Aug.  14,  1905. 

Whether  or  not  the  accident  happened  exactly  in 
this  manner,  the  opportunity  for  mistake  is  evident. 
Obviously,  the  train-dispatcher  system  of  safeguard- 
ing against  accidents  does  not  stand  for  a  very  high 
degree  of  public  safety. 

To  what  extent  then  can  the  railroads  improve 
their  present  methods?  They  can  add  a  block-signal 
system.  Some  of  the  railroads  already  are  equipped, 
more  or  less,  with  block  signals,  but  without  a  device 
for  automatically  stopping  the  train.  They  can  com- 
plete their  equipment.  But  the  other  great  means  of 
preventing  accidents  —  namely,  to  provide  that  the 
engineer,  after  he  sees  trouble  ahead,  has  sufficient 
space  in  which  to  stop  —  is  beyond  the  reach  of  the 
steam  railroads.  Their  lines  abound  in  curves.  Their 
trains  require  an  excessive  distance  in  which  to  stop. 
Smoke  and  steam,  from  his  own  engine  or  another, 
frequently  obscure  the  engineer's  vision.  In  steam- 
railroad  practice  much  of  the  time  the  engineer  can- 
not see  ahead  to  a  distance  in  which  it  is  possible  to 
stop  his  train.  Much  of  the  time  he  is  running 
blind,  relying  upon  his  orders  from  the  train  dis- 
patcher. It  is  perfectly  evident  that  this  must  be 
so,  when  you  consider  that  in  fog  or  blinding  snow 
the  railroads  intend  that  their  trains  shall  come  in  on 
time.  Who  ever  saw  "  weather  permitting  "  at  the 
head  of  a  railroad  time-table?  Whatever  we  may 
think  as  to  whether  it  is  desirable  to  run  slower  in 
a  fog,  the  main  point  is  clear.  The  engineer  at  times 
must  run  blind  all  the  way.  This  question  of  run- 


8  PUBLIC    SAFETY   vs. 

ning  blind  has  a  most  important  bearing  upon  acci- 
dents. In  by  far  the  greater  number  of  collisions 
it  will  be  found  that  one  engineer  or  the  other  was 
running  blind.  Of  course,  it  is  perfectly  obvious 
that  if  the  engineer,  or  the  motorman,  had  seen  the 
obstruction  in  time  to  have  stopped,  he  would  have 
stopped.  He  always  tries  hard  enough.  Running 
blind,  more  than  anything  else,  is  the  direct  cause  of 
railroad  and  street-railway  accidents. 

We  have  then  the  railroads,  with  numerous  curves 
and  grade  crossings,  running  blind  habitually,  mak- 
ing but  slight  use  of  block  signals,  but  relying  for 
safety  principally  upon  the  train-dispatcher  system, 
—  a  human-agency  system  bound  sooner  or  later  to 
fail.  In  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  therefore,  the 
interurban  roads  are  safer.  Starting  anew,  and  less 
restricted  in  grades,  they  have  the  opportunity  to 
build  with  no  blind  curves.  With  blind  curves 
eliminated,  on  private  right-of-way,  and  no  grade 
crossings,  thoroughly  protected  by  automatic  block 
signals,  the  interurban  roads  obviously  will  give  a 
higher  degree  of  public  safety  than  either  the  street 
railways  or  the  steam  railroads. 

Equally  simple  and  axiomatic  are  the  considera- 
tions whereby  we  see  that  the  interurban  road  is 
capable  of  more  rapid  transit  than  the  steam  rail- 
roads. Between  two  cities  the  interurban  road  can 
keep  more  nearly  a  straight  line.  The  line  therefore 
will  be  shorter.  Greater  speed  is  possible  upon  a 
straight  track  than  upon  a  track  with  curves.  There 
is  no  changing  engines  and  taking  water  with  electric 
cars.  They  can  keep  going.  Hence  with  fewer 
miles  to  run,  the  possibility  of  running  faster,  and 
the  long  stops  eliminated,  it  is  obvious  that  the  pos- 
sibilities of  rapid  transit  on  the  interurban  roads  ex- 
ceed the  possibilities  on  the  steam  railroads. 

With  regard  to  progress,  the  interurban  road  is  the 
latest  manifestation  of  progress  in  the  use  of  elec- 


RAILROAD    MONOPOLY  9 

tricity  for  transportation.  It  has  established  a  new 
kind  of  service,  —  high-speed  electric  cars  on  private 
right-of-way,  running  at  frequent  and  regular  in- 
tervals, stopping  on  signal  from  passengers,  an 
enjoyable  ride  free  from  smoke,  cinders,  and  dust, 
at  low  rates  of  fare.  It  is  the  open  electric  car 
versuS  the  hot  and  dusty  train..  It  increases  the 
facilities  for  inter-communication.  It  causes  the 
people  to  ride  more  than  they  formerly  did,  and 
thereby  itself  creates  the  greater  part  of  its  own 
traffic.  We  are  just  beginning  to  know  its  benefits. 
And,  if  benefits  more  than  we  now  can  foresee  do 
not  accrue,  it  will  differ  from  all  the  progress  of  the 
past,  —  from  all  the  openings  of  new  fields  to  men's 
activities  that  we  have  known.  It  is  almost  self- 
evident,  therefore,  that  the  interurban  road  offers: 
public  safety  to  a  greater  degree  than  we  have  yet 
known;  rapid  transit  over  and  above  the  steam  rail- 
roads; and  that  it  stands  for  the  modern  trend  of 
progress  in  transportation  by  electricity. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  interurban  service  can  be 
made  a  great  public  benefit.  The  public  demand  for 
it  was  demonstrated  last  spring  before  the  committee 
on  street  railways  ( 1905) .  That  committee  apparently 
was  unanimous  in  favor  of  an  interurban  road,  differ- 
ing only  as  to  the  best  means  of  getting  it.  The  ques- 
tion to  which  I  shall  address  myself,  therefore,  is  not 
so  much  whether  the  interurban  type  of  road  is  de- 
sirable, but,  how  may  we  best  secure  it? 

Railroad  and  Street-Railway  Laws 

So  far  all  legislation  proposed  has  been  based  upon 
the  present  street-railway  law.  The  street-railway 
committee  reported  last  spring: 

"...  The  only  element  in  the  ...  petitions  that  is  really 
vital  (for  other  positions  taken  at  the  hearings  appear  to 


10  PUBLIC   SAFETY   vs. 

have  been  abandoned)  is  the  grant  of  the  right  to  operate 
electric  cars  on  private  land,  and  to  acquire  the  land  therefor 
by  eminent  domain  if  necessary.  With  these  rights  given,  the 
present  general  street-railway  laws  are  ample,  and  such  rights 
can  easily  be  secured  by  the  change  of  a  few  words  in  the 
existing  general  law.  .  .  ."  —  Report  of  Committee  on  Street 
Railways,  May  3,  1905.  Senate  document  No.  341,  p.  3. 

This,  undoubtedly,  is  correct  as  regards  the  special 
petitions  which  were  before  the  committee.  But  it 
is  obvious  that  the  interurban  road,  operating  large 
cars  perhaps  in  trains  of  two  or  three,  at  speeds  of 
fifty  and  sixty  miles  per  hour,  is  a  railroad.  And  it 
would  seem,  therefore,  that  it  should  come  under  a 
railroad  law,  rather  than  under  a  street-railway  law. 
The  railroad  law  and  the  street-railway  law  are 
radically  and  fundamentally  different.  The  street- 
railway  law  stands  for  the  accommodation  of  people 
upon  the  streets,  —  for  the  leave-at-your-door  sys- 
tem. The  railroad  law  stands  for  high  speed  on 
private  right-of-way.  The  street  railways  are  sub- 
ject to  local  control.  The  towns  can  say  whether  or 
not  the  road  shall  be  built;  what  its  location  shall 
be;  at  what  speed  it  shall  operate.  The  railroads  are 
subject  to  the  control  of  the  Board  of  Railroad 
Commissioners  only.  Again,  the  right  to  have  tracks 
in  the  public  streets  can  be  withdrawn,  at  any  time, 
by  each  township.  The  street  railways,  therefore, 
have  a  revokable  tenure.  The  railroads  own  the  land 
upon  which  they  run,  and,  therefore,  have  a  more 
permanent  tenure.  Thus  we  see  that  the  street-rail- 
way law  provides  for  full  privilege  of  running  in 
the  streets,  local  control  of  location,  local  control  of 
speed,  and  revokable  tenure  of  franchise.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  railroad  law  provides  for  limited 
street  privileges,  control  by  the  Board  of  Railroad 
Commissioners,  and  ownership  of  right-of-way.  It 
seems  logical,  indeed,  that  the  interurban  railway, 


RAILROAD    MONOPOLY  11 

striving  for  high  speed  on  private  right-of-way, 
should  be  subject  to  the  restrictions  of  the  railroad 
law  and  should  have  the  privileges.  But  more  than 
this,  I  contend  that  an  interurban  law  must  be  based 
upon  the  railroad  conception,  rather  than  upon  the 
street-railway  conception;  that  unless  this  is  done 
you  Cannot  secure  public  safety  and  rapid  transit, 
and  you  will  place  artificial  restraint  upon  the  natu- 
ral trend  of  progress  in  electric  transportation.  It 
is  to  this  question,  then,  that  I  desire  to  direct  your 
special  attention. 

A  general  law  for  interurban  railways  should  be 
similar  to  the  present  railroad  law. 

The  Street-Railway  Law  with  Private  Land 
and  Eminent  Domain 

If  you  attempt  to  build  an  interurban  road  under 
the  street-railway  law,  the  first  thing  you  must  do  is 
to  secure  the  grant  of  a  location  from  each  town  that 
you  want  to  go  through.  Theirs  is  the  initial  author- 
ity. Now  it  may  happen  that  they  will  grant  a  loca- 
tion in  the  right  place;  but  if  they  do  it  is  from 
chance  rather  than  from  any  virtue  in  the  law.  On 
the  other  hand,  suppose  that  John  Doe,  of  Bird 
Center,  politically  influential,  feels  that  the  public 
interest  will  be  served  best  if  the  road  runs  by  the 
Old  Folk's  Home,  next  to  which  he  happens  to  own 
some  unimproved  property.  Or  suppose  there  hap-« 
pens  to  be  a  body  of  citizens  who  insist  that  the  road 
shall  run  through  Main  Street.  Under  the  street- 
railway  law  the  road  goes  where  the  influential  citi- 
zens of  the  towns  demand  that  it  shall  go,  or  it  does 
not  go  at  all.  You  have  then  a  trade.  The  franchise 
will  be  granted  in  such  and  such  locations  only.  This 
can  happen  in  each  town.  The  result  is,  —  curves, 
and  a  longer  line.  It  is  fatal  both  to  public  safety 
and  to  rapid  transit. 


12  PUBLIC    SAFETY   vs. 

Next,  these  locations,  when  granted  under  the 
street-railway  law,  can  be  revoked.  (Revised  Laws, 
Chap.  112,  sec.  32.)  If  an  interurban  road,  running 
on  private  right-of-way  with  overhead,  crossings  at 
each  street,  were  subject  to  this  law,  there  would  be 
either  the  absurd  possibility  of  revoking  the  right  to 
run  on  its  own  land  and  bridges,  or  it  would  not 
have  the  street-railway  characteristic  of  revokable 
tenure,  and  would  not  be  subject  to  this  law.  More- 
over, uncertainty  in  a  franchise  would  tend  to  pre- 
vent expenditures  which  might  be  desirable  for  rapid 
transit  and  for  public  safety.  It  is  a  bar  to  progress. 

Again,  under  the  street-railway  law  the  towns  can 
regulate  the  speed  of  operation.  This  would  be 
absurd  on  an  interurban  road  running  on  private 
right-of-way,  and  might  become  an  unwarranted  in- 
terference by  one  town  with  the  rapid  transit  of 
other  communities. 

Furthermore,  the  street-railway  law  provides  full 
privilege  of  running  in  the  streets.  The  interurban 
cars,  large  and  clumsy,  running  perhaps  in  trains, 
and  capable  of  high  speed,  have  no  more  reason  to 
be  upon  the  streets  than  the  cars  of  the  steam  rail- 
roads. This  does  not  mean  that  either  should  be 
excluded  entirely  from  the  streets;  but  they  should 
be  allowed  upon  the  streets  in  exceptional  cases  only, 
—  when  there  is  a  real  necessity,  which  cannot  be 
provided  .for  otherwise.  If  the  interurban  roads  are 
allowed  to  run  upon  the  streets  as  an  ordinary  privi- 
lege, it  is  to  be  expected  that  they  will  take  advan- 
tage of  it;  and  then  we  shall  have  high-speed  cars 
running  back  and  forth  between  the  street  and  pri- 
vate right-of-way.  Such  a  road  inevitably  must  con- 
tain numerous  curves,  highway  crossings  and  half 
crossings,  and  in  fact  all  the  elements  which  are  fatal 
to  public  safety,  and  which  render  rapid  transit 
impossible. 


RAILROAD    MONOPOLY  13 

Thus  we  see  that  the  fundamental  principles  of  the 
street-railway  law,  —  cars  running  upon  the  streets, 
control  of  original  location  by  the  towns,  regulation 
of  speed  by  the  towns,  revokable  tenure,  —  when  ap- 
plied to  a  high-speed  road,  are  incompatible  with 
public  safety  and  rapid  transit,  and  are  an  unwar- 
ranted restraint  upon  progress.  The  street-railway 
law,  therefore,  modified  or  stretched  by  private-land 
privileges  and  eminent  domain  to  cover  high-speed 
cars,  becomes  illogical  and  pernicious. 

The  Street- Rail  way  Law  with  Private  Land 
but  not  Eminent  Domain 

But  if  an  open  and,  direct  application  of  the  street- 
railway  law  to  the  interurban  road  is  so  ill  suited  to 
the  public  good,  what  shall  we  say  of  that  other 
measure,  known  in  the  last  legislature  as  the  "  little 
bill,"  namely,  Private  Land  for  Street  Railways, 
without  eminent  domain?  (1905.  Senate  bill  No. 
338.)  Ostensibly  it  grants  to  street  railways  simply 
a  slight  increase  in  the  private  land  privileges  which 
they  have  already.  In  reality,  it  would  have  little  or 
no  application  to  existing  street  railways,  but  would 
allow  future  street  railways  to  attempt  interurban 
construction.  In  reality,  it  is  an  interurban  measure. 
In  the  absence  of  a  better  law  it  would  promptly  be 
used  for  interurban  roads.  A  railway  built  under 
such  a  measure  might  become  a  poor  imitation  of 
an  interurban  road.  For  without  the  right  of  emi- 
nent domain  they  could  condemn  no  land;  and  their 
line  must  twist  and  turn  to  conform  to  land  that 
would  be  sold  freely.  If  an  obstinate  owner  blocks 
them,  they  must  come  to  the  legislature  for  a  special 
right  to  condemn.  Public  safety  and  rapid  transit 
would  become  a  farce  on  such  a  line.  This  bill  so 
far  has  met  so  little  opposition  that  it  has  been  called 
the  "  path  of  least  resistance."  The  reason  for  this 


14  PUBLIC    SAFETY   vs. 

lack  of  opposition  seems  to  be  that  it  would  be  of 
the  least  service  to  the  people,  and  so  would  cause 
the  railroads  the  least  annoyance  from  competition. 
On  railways  which  are  not  yet  built  it  would  seem 
inexcusable  to  allow  such  premeditated  disregard  for 
the  public  demand  for  rapid  transit,  and  incidentally 
for  public  safety.  For  all  future  roads,  therefore, 
we  should  have  some  law  other  than  this. 

Lest  there  be  in  your  minds  any  doubt  whether 
such  a  law  as  this  "  little  bill  "  is  desirable  on  account 
of  the  existing  street  railways,  let  us  consider  for  a 
moment  what  the  existing  street  railways  really  need, 
and  what  is  their  place  in  the  general  interurban 
problem.  We  will  distinguish  sharply  then  between 
street  railways  now  built,  —  which  we  already  have 
on  our  hands,  —  and  street  railways  which  may  be 
built  in  the  future. 

Street-Railway  Conditions 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  outlying  street  railways 
of  this  State  are  in  poor  condition.  In  1900,  I 
showed  (The  Financier,  supplement,  Dec.  3,  1900) 
that  if  a  rational  method  of  bookkeeping  be  applied, 
the  street  railways  of  Massachusetts  were  not  doing 
as  well  as  they  appeared  to  be.  Out  of  sixty-nine 
road,s,  —  other  than  the  Boston  Elevated,  —  report- 
ing for  the  year  1899,  thirty-six  paid  dividends.  Of 
the  thirty-six  that  paid  dividends  only  five  earned 
what  they  paid,  and  thirteen  paid  dividends  although 
earning  nothing,  according  to  the  method  of  figuring 
which  I  fully  explained.  The  situation  to-day  seems 
to  be  worse  than  in  1899.  The  Railroad  Commis- 
sioners this  year,  in  commenting  on  street-railway 
conditions,  make  the  following  statement:  — 

"...  In  such  cases  [the  poorer  roads]  the  future  prom- 
ises as  possible  events:  the  acceptance  of  an  unsatisfactory 


RAILROAD   MONOPOLY  15 

service  as  better  than  nothing ;  an  increase  in  fares ;  or  the 
abandonment  of  the  railway.  .  .  .  "  —  R.  R.  Com.  Report, 
1905,  p.  6. 

What  the  street  railways  need,  of  course,  is  to  induce 
more  people  to  ride.  To  accomplish  this  they  must 
reach  more  people,  and  carry  them  in  such  a  manner 
that  they  will  be  inclined  to  ride.  In  order  to  see 
how  this  may  be  done,  let  us  consider  what  lines  of 
development  are  possible  for  the  existing  street 
railways. 

Street  railways  are  now  conceived  officially  as 
improved  omnibuses.  The  Special  Commission  of 
1898  reported  :- 

"...  the  street  cars  being  nothing  more  or  less  than  an 
improved  omnibus,  and  the  tramway  a  special  feature  in 
the  pavement  of  the  public  way.  .  .  .  This  is  all  that  the 
street  railway  was  fifty  years  ago,  when  first  laid ;  it  is  all  it 
is  now,  —  an  improved  line  of  omnibuses,  running  over  a  spe- 
cial pavement.  If  this  fact  be  fairly  grasped  and  borne  con- 
stantly in  mind,  the  discussion  of  the  principles  underlying  it 
is  greatly  simplified.  The  analogy  throughout  is  with  the 
omnibus  line,  and  not  with  the  railroad  train ;  with  the  public 
thoroughfare,  and  not  with  the  private  right-of-way."  — 
Report  of  Special  Commission,  February,  1898.  House  docu- 
ment No.  475,  p.  11. 

The  analogy,  then,  is  with  the  omnibus  line,  as  distinct 
from  the  railroad.  The  street  railways  are  intended 
to  accommodate,  primarily,  people  upon  the  high- 
ways. Under  this  conception  they  must  look  to  the 
building  up  of  the  suburbs  for  their  increase  in 
receipts.  They  must  induce  people  to  settle  along 
their  line.  This  is  the  basis  of  the  street-railway 
laws,  and  the  present  official  State  attitude.  In  dis- 
cussing types,  this  conception  might  well  be  distin- 
guished as  the  "  Omnibus  Line." 

But  it  is  obvious  that  this  conception  does  not 
represent  the  electric-railway  conditions  as  they  actu- 


16  PUBLIC    SAFETY   vs. 

ally  exist  to-day.  The  street  railways  correspond 
more  nearly  to  railroads  than  they  do  to  an  omnibus 
line.  Their  right  to  run  on  private  land  might  be 
extended,  in  order  that  they  may  become  a  combina- 
tion of  a  railroad  and  an  omnibus  line.  This  would 
result  in  higher  speed  on  individual  lines,  and  by 
extensions  and  combinations  with  other  roads  a  rail- 
way system  could  be  built  up  by  which  each  road 
would  reach  a  larger  population.  The  running  time 
on  the  roads  would  be  somewhat  shortened,  of  course, 
but  the  saving  in  time  would  not  be  proportional  to 
the  high  speed  of  the  cars.  It  would  not  be  rapid 
transit,  but  high-speed  cars  with  slow  running  time. 
On  such  a  road,  or  system  of  roads,  there  would  be 
inevitably  numerous  danger  points  at  which  it  would 
be  necessary  for  public  safety  to  establish  "  stop 
posts."  In  fact,  this  would  be  such  a  characteristic 
feature  of  this  type  of  road,  that  it  might  well  be 
distinguished  as  the  "  Danger  Post  Road."  If  the 
street  railways  were  destined  to  develop  into  rail- 
roads of  the  interurban  type,  this  would  be  the 
transition  stage. 

Again,  the  street  railways  might  be  owned  by  the 
steam  railroads,  and  become  feeders  to  them.  If  the 
cars  ran  simply  to  the  railroad  stations,  there  would 
be  no  appreciable  difference  from  the  present;  but 
to  suggest  the  railroad  ownership,  this  might  be  called 
the  "  Depot  Wagon  System."  If  the  street  railways 
were  owned,  by  the  steam  roads,  and  the  street  cars 
were  run  actually  onto  the  steam-railroad  tracks,  and 
thence  to  the  larger  centres  of  population,  they 
would  become,  and  might  well  be  distinguished  as, 
"  Branches  to  the  Steam  Roads." 

Similarly,  the  street  railways  might  become  branches 
to  high-speed  interurban  roads.  In  this  case  the  street 
cars  would  run  to  the  interurban  road,  and  thence  at 
a  higher  speed  to  the  larger  centres  of  population. 


RAILROAD    MONOPOLY  17 

This  might  be  called,  "  Branches  to  the  Interurban 
Roads." 

We  have,  then,  five  distinct  lines  of  development 
for  the  street  railways :  — 

1.  They  may  remain  an  "  Omnibus   Line,"   and 
grow  up  with  the  country. 

2.  They  may  become  a  combination  of  an  omnibus 
line  and  a  railroad,  running  intermittently  upon  pri- 
vate right-of-way,  —  a  "  Danger  Post  Road." 

3.  They  may  be  owned  by  the  steam  railroads  and 
become  a  "  Depot  Wagon  System." 

4.  They  may  become   "  Branches   to   the    Steam 
Railroads." 

5.  They  may  become  "  Branches  to  the  Interurban 
Roads." 

In  regard  to  the  "Omnibus  Line  "  conception,  it 
is  obvious  that  to  remain  simply  an  omnibus  line  and 
wait  for  the  population  to  increase  presents  slight 
attractions. 

Suppose  the  street  railways  were  given  the,  right 
to  run  on  private  land,  for  the  purpose  of  making 
greater  speed  by  becoming  a  road  running  partly 
upon  the  streets  and  partly  upon  private  right-of- 
way,  —  with  the  danger  points  protected  by  stop 
posts,  —  a  "Danger  Post  Road,"  -let  us  see  to 
what  extent  they  would  be  benefited.  The  street 
railways,  as  they  exist  to-day,  are  loaded  with  danger 
points.  These  occur  principally  in  the  form  of  blind 
curves,  where  the  motorman's  vision  is  so  obscured 
that  he  cannot  see  ahead  to  a  distance  in  which  it  is 
reasonable  to  expect  him  to  stop  his  car  without  fail. 
But  under  the  street-railway  law  as  it  exists  to-day 
much  of  this  can  be  corrected.  The  street  railways 
have  the  right  to  use  private  land, 

"...  for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  grades  or  curves  in  a 
public  street  or  way,  and  for  such  other  purpose  incidental 


18  PUBLIC    SAFETY   vs. 

to  the  use  of  the  streets,  as  the  railroad  commissioners  may 
approve.  .  .  ."  —  Revised  Laws,  Chap.  112,  sec.  9. 

or, 

"...  to  avoid  dangerous  curves  or  grades  existing  in  the 
highways,  or  for  other  similar  purposes  incident  to  and  not 
inconsistent  with  its  corporate  franchise  of  operating  a  rail- 
way to  accommodate  public  travel  in  public  ways."  —  Acts  of 
1903,  Chap.  476,  sec.  1. 

Street  railways,  therefore,  can  eliminate  their  danger 
points  by  using  private  land.  So  far  as  the  use  of 
private  land  will  give  them  a  safer  line,  they  can 
have  it.  For  public  safety,  private  land  is  allowed 
to-day;  for  high  speed,  not  unless  it  is  incidental  to 
the  use  of  the  streets. 

Now,  after  the  street  railways  have  taken  full 
advantage  of  the  law  as  it  exists  to-day,  and  have 
used  private  land  for  eliminating  their  danger  points 
as  far  as  it  is  possible  to  do  so,  what  then  will  be 
their  further  use  'for  private  right-of-way?  Is  it  to 
relocate,  or  to  extend?  If  the  existing  street  railways 
should  relocate  any  considerable  portion  of  their  track 
on  private  land,  it  would  be  a  duplication  of  their 
investment.  On  the  city  street  railways  it  would  not 
be  practical  anyway.  On  the  country  street  railways 
the  population  they  serve  is  not  sufficient  to  support 
their  present  investment.  It  is  doubtful  whether  they 
could  dispose  of  the  securities  for  duplicating  the 
investment.  Also,  how  are  they  going  to  obtain  the 
additional  securities?  Suppose  the  people  who  have 
established  their  homes  along  the  line,  because  of  the 
accommodations  it  offered,  should  object  to  its  re- 
moval. There  is  no  probability  that  the  existing 
street  railways  will  relocate  their  tracks  to  any 
greater  extent  than  is  necessary  for  public  safety. 
Neither  will  there  be  any  general  extending  of  street- 
railway  tracks.  Each  road  is  not  going  to  extend 


RAILROAD    MONOPOLY  19 

through  the  territory  of  some  other  road.  In  making 
combinations  with  other  roads,  there  would  be  no  oc- 
casion to  extend  for  connections,  because  they  already 
connect.  But  however  you  may  look  at  it,  an  exten- 
sion is  new  track ;  and  there  is  no  reason  why  new  track 
should  not  be  laid  properly.  The  only  reason  for  tol- 
erating the  existing  street-railway  conditions  is,  that 
the  tracks  are  down  and  the  roads  are  too  poor  to 
improve  them.  If  greater  safety  can  be  secured  under 
a  different  law,  why  should  they  not  form  new  organ- 
izations for  extensions  ?  As  a  matter  of  fact,  for  prac- 
tical reasons,  street  railways  have  been  extended  in 
any  length,  always  by  forming  new  companies.  It  is 
not  apparent,  therefore,  where  any  greater  privilege 
in  the  use  of  private  land,  than  they  now  have,  will  be 
of  any  real  benefit  to  the  existing  street  railways. 

On  the  other  hand,  such  a  law  means,  that  through 
the  territory  of  existing  street  railways  new  railways 
could,  be  built  of  the  "  Danger  Post "  type,  —  with 
high-speed  cars  and  slow-running  time,  —  and  this 
would  be  a  most  serious  injury  to  them.  It  would 
take  away  their  prospect  of  reaching  more  people  by 
a  service  that  would  induce  them  to  ride.  The  salva- 
tion of  the  street  railways  lies  in  connecting  with  a 
railway  that  will  give  genuine  rapid  transit  to  the 
large  cities.  By  such  means  their  cars  could  be  taken 
from  some  point  on  their  line  and  carried  rapidly  to 
the  larger  centres  of  population.  Probably  it  is  not 
practical  to  run  the  street  cars  over  the  tracks  of  the 
steam  railroads.  But  over  the  interurban  roads  it 
would  be  practical.  The  real  prospect,  therefore,  for 
the  outlying  street  railways,  lies  in  the  development 
of  genuine  rapid  transit  by  the  interurban  road. 
They  should  become  "  Branches  to  the  Interurban 
Roads."  In  this  way  they  would  reach  a  larger 
population,  and  give  them  a  service  sufficiently  quick 
to  induce  them  to  ride.  To  aid  the  existing  street 


20  PUBLIC    SAFETY   vs. 

railways,  therefore,  we  must  look  for  other  means 
than  a  law  giving  them  a  private  land  privilege  of 
no  use  to  them,  but  which  might  be  used  by  new 
roads  of  the  "  Danger  Post "  type,  greatly  to  their 
detriment. 

Street- Rail  way  Accidents 

But  aside  from  the  effect  upon  the  railways,  the 
effect  upon  the  safety  of  the  public  should  determine 
against  allowing  street  railways  to  use  private  land 
indiscriminately  for  the  purpose  of  securing  greater 
speed.  A  change  in  the  law,  which  will  not  result  in 
greater  safety  and  tend  to  reduce  the  accidents  which 
are  occurring,  cannot  be  considered  otherwise  than 
harmful,  not  only  to  the  interests  of  the  people,  but 
to  the  real  interests  of  the  street-railway  companies, 
as  well.  For  purposes  of  public  safety  the  street 
railways  now  have  greater  privilege  in  private  land 
than  they  possibly  can  use.  The  purpose  of  extend- 
ing this  privilege  is  for  still  greater  speed.  Let  us 
see,  then,  what  has  been  the  effect  upon  the  accident 
record  of  increasing  street-railway  speeds. 

There  have  been  two  definite  periods  when  the 
speed  of  the  street  cars  has  been  increased.  The  first 
period  is  marked  by  the  change  from  horse  cars  to 
electric  cars.  When  the  horse  cars  were  sufficiently 
out  of  the  way,  the  higher  speed  of  the  electric  cars 
prevailed.  The  change  began  in  1888,  and  in  1894 
the  operation  was  about  nine-tenths  electric.  The 
second  increase  in  speed  took  place  when  the  electric 
roads  extended  their  service  to  the  outlying  cities,  and 
began  to  run  through  cars  and  to  use  the  large  cars 
of  the  interurban  type  equipped  with  four  motors. 
The  "  four-motor  equipments,"  which  really  mark 
this  period,  were  put  upon  the  market  by  the  big 
manufacturing  companies  in  about  the  year  1898. 
A  circular  of  the  General  Electric  Company  in  1901 


RAILROAD    MONOPOLY 


21 


(Bulletin,  No.  4255)  shows  the  roads  using  them. 
The  four-motor  equipment  of  itself  signifies  high 
speed.  It  was  built  at  first  for  140-horsepower  and 
a  speed  of  about  35  miles  per  hour;  then  for  200- 
horsepower  and  a  speed  of  about  45  miles  per  hour; 
and  now  for  500-horsepower  and  a  speed  of  60  to  70 
miles  per  hour.  A  general  effort  for  high  speed 
accompanied  this  interurban  development.  Anyone 
who  has  been  a  frequent  passenger  in  the  street  cars 
undoubtedly  has  noticed  these  two  periods  of  in- 
creased speed  from  ordinary  observation. 

Now  each  of  these  efforts  for  higher  speed  has 
been  accompanied  by  an  increase  in  the  accident  rate. 
Plate  I.1  shows  the  accidents  that  have  occurred  on 

I1  The  curves  in  Plate  I.  and  Plate  II.  are  plotted  from  these  figures,  from 
the  Massachusetts  Railroad  Commissioner's  reports:  — 


STREET  RAILWAYS 

STEAM 

XT' 

RAILR'D 

YEAR 

ACCI- 
DENTS 

ACCI- 
DENTS 

MILES 
MAIN 
TRACK 

ACCIDENT 
RATE 
PER  MILE 

PASSEN- 
GERS* 

ACCIDENT 
RATE  PER 
PASSENGER 

1887 

802 

131 

470 

0.28 

125  million 

1.05  X  10-« 

1888 

782 

227 

534 

0.43 

134       " 

1.69       " 

1889 

652 

357 

574 

0.62 

148       « 

2.41 

1890 

830 

372 

612 

0.61 

165       " 

2.26       " 

1891 

826 

409 

672 

0.61 

176 

2.32       " 

1892 

1,100 

610 

755 

0.81 

194 

3.14       " 

1893 

1,451 

585 

874 

0.67 

214 

2.74       " 

1894 

1,115 

1,341 

929 

1.45 

220 

6.10       " 

1895 

981 

1,507 

1,078 

1.40 

260 

5.80       " 

18% 

1,025 

1,766 

1,277 

1.38 

292 

6.05       " 

1897 

919 

2,066 

1,414 

1.47 

309 

6.71       " 

1898 

1,077 

2,213 

1,537 

1.44 

331 

6.68       " 

1899 

1,072 

2,488 

1,734 

1.44 

357 

6.96       " 

1900 

927 

2,604 

1,913 

1.36 

395 

6.60       " 

1901 

611 

2,533 

2,177 

1.17 

434 

5.83       " 

1902 

906 

4,253 

2,444 

1.74 

465 

9.15       " 

1903 

841 

3,974 

2,523 

1.57 

505 

7.86      " 

1904 

862 

5,078 

2,575 

1.97 

520 

9.79      " 

*  Really  the  number  of  5^  fares  collected. 

PLATE   I 

STREET   RAILWAY  ACCIDENTS 

IN    MASSACHUSETTS 


STREET 
RAILWAY 


RAILROAD 


YEAR 

Red  Line  shows  RAILROAD  Accidents 


RAILROAD    MONOPOLY  23 

the  street  railways  in  Massachusetts,  and  also  on  the 
steam  railroads,  for  each  year  since  the  horse-car 
period  —  1888.  It  will  be  observed  that  the  number 
of  injuries  on  street  railways  has  been  increasing 
steadily,  and  has  now  reached  a  very  high  point.  But 
the  most  conspicuous  feature  of  the  curve  is  the 
sudden  increase  in  street-railway  accidents  that  has 
taken  place  at  two  periods.  In  1894  the  number  of 
accidents  jumped  up  and  stayed  up.  Then  in  1902 
a  similar  jump  occurred.  This  characteristic  stands 
out  plainly  in  Plate  II.,  which  shows  the  accident 
rate  for  street  railways  in  Massachusetts  for  each 
year  since  the  horse-car  period.  In  this  plate  both  the 
accident  rate  per  mile  and  the  accident  rate  per  pas- 
senger are  shown.  Whether  we  consider  the  accidents 
on  the  basis  of  the  number  of  miles  of  track,  or  on 
the  basis  of  the  number  of  passengers  carried,  the 
characteristic  feature  is  the  same.  There  have  been 
two  jumps  in  the  accident  rate.  And  these  two  jumps 
coincide  with  the  two  general  efforts  which  have  been 
made  for  high  speed  on  street  railways.  Is  it  neces- 
sary to  show  more  plainly  the  utter  recklessness  of 
allowing  another  effort  for  increased  speed  on  street 
railways,  whether  wholly  upon  the  streets,  or  partly 
upon  the  streets?  We  should  aid  them  to  remove  their 
existing 'danger  points,  not  to  secure  more. 

No  doubt,  the  existing  street  railways  need  help. 
But  so,  too,  do  the  people  need  help  to  protect  them 
from  any  more  street  railways  like  those  we  now 
have.  This  question  appeals  to  me  largely  upon  the 
personal  side.  It  is  my  experience  that,  to  a  small 
boy  few  delights  surpass  riding  in  the  trolley  cars. 
We  are  bound  to  use  the  street  railways  for  ourselves 
and  our  children.  It  is  our  right  that  we  should  be 
able  to  do  so  without  apprehension.  And  knowing 
the  street-railway  situation  as  I  do,  it  is  my  duty,  to 
myself  and  to  others,  to  put  this  situation  clearly 


& 


a 
u 

5 


PLATE  II 


ACCIDENT   RATE 

°*    On  Street  Railways  in  Massachusetts 


1     2 


PER  MILE 

OF   TRACK 

PER 
PASSENGER 


YEAR 

Note:  For  actual  rate  multiply  column  1  by  0.1,  and 
column  2  by  10'6 


RAILROAD    MONOPOLY  25 

before  you,  in  order  that  you  may  consider  it  from 
the  point  of  view  of  those  who  must  ride  in  the  cars. 
What  does  it  matter  that  the  interests  of  a  few  syn- 
dicates may  be  affected  one  way  or  the  other,  —  what 
do  we  care  for  our  own  business  interests  if  our  chil- 
dren be  among  the  next  five  thousand  injured?  What 
interest  can  the  State  have  greater  than  this?  The 
treatment  of  this  question  as  a  balancing  of  the 
special  interests  of  railroads,  of  street  railways,  of 
syndicates,  etc.,  should  cease  and  the  entire  effort  of 
the  Legislature  should  be  to  reduce  at  once,  by  radical 
steps  if  necessary,  the  present  accident  rate ;  and  then 
to  insure  that  no  more  street  railways  like  those  we 
now  have  shall  be  built.  We  are  in  a  bad  position 
to-day  with  regard  to  our  street  railways.  Let  us 
first  alleviate  the  present  condition  as  best  we  may, 
and  then  prevent  absolutely  the  same  condition  from 
arising  again. 

Therefore,  let  us  give  the  street  railways  the  right 
of  eminent  domain,  in  order  that  there  may  be  no 
obstacle  to  their  securing  safer  lines  by  using  the 
private  land  privileges  which  they  now  have.  They 
may  have  it  now,  but  let  there  be  no  doubt  about  it. 
More  than  this,  insist  that  they  shall  exercise  the 
rights  they  now  have  for  securing  safer  lines,  or  that 
they  shall  reduce  their  speed.  Insist  that  their  track 
shall  be  kept  up,  and  their  equipment  improved. 
Allow  them  to  capitalize  freely  such  public  safety 
improvements.  And  give  the  Railroad  Commis- 
sioners the  right  to  enforce  their  orders  through  the 
Courts,  by  enjoining  the  roads  from  operating,  if  nec- 
essary. But  for  the  Legislature  to  pass  a  law,  ex- 
tending the  private  land  privileges  of  street  railways, 
—  which  not  only  would  countenance  the  present  con- 
ditions, but  would  encourage  more  roads  of  the  same 
kind,  and  a  still  further  effort  for  high  speed, — 
would  be,  to  place  private  and  corporate  interests 


. 

OF  THE  A 

f  UNIVERSITY  \ 


26  PUBLIC    SAFETY   vs. 

above  that  consideration  which  the  people  have  the 
right  to  expect  for  their  safety  and  well-being. 

The  Proper  Law  for  High-Speed  Railways 

If  it  is  not  possible,  therefore,  to  obtain  the  greatest 
public  safety,  genuine  rapid  transit,  and  a  fruitful 
field  for  progress,  under  a  street-railway  law,  let  us 
see  what  are  the  elements  that  we  do  need  in  an  inter- 
urban  law  to  secure  these  results.  The  interurban 
road  will  differ  from  the  best  constructed  street  rail- 
ways of  to-day,  principally  in  keeping  its  track  as 
straight  as  possible.  The  construction  need  not  be 
any  more  expensive  than  on  the  best  street  railways 
with  the  grade  crossings  eliminated.  In  fact,  the 
straighter  the  track,  the  fewer  miles  there  are  to  build. 
The  cars  need  not  run  any  faster  than  it  is  profitable 
to  have  them.  But  in  keeping  the  track  straight,  more 
than  in  anything  else,  lies  the  greatest  public  safety, 
and  the  greatest  possibilities  of  rapid  transit. 

The  street-railway  tracks,  as  we  have  seen,  are  con- 
trolled in  alignment  by  our  crooked  streets,  and  by  the 
rival  demands  of  local  town  factions.  To  keep 
straight,  the  interurban  roads  must  be  free  from  both. 
First,  then,  they  must  run  on  private  right-of-way. 
But  the  straight-line  principle  can  be  ruined  by  one 
obstinate  owner.  Hence,  second,  the  interurban  roads 
must  have  the  right  of  eminent  domain.  The  third 
element,  equally  fundamental  in  securing  a  straight 
line,  is  freedom  from  local  control.  Local  control 
allows  the  whole  question  of  public  safety  and  rapid 
transit,  and  the  interests  of  a  larger  community,  to 
hang  upon  a  trade  with  the  officials  of  the  towns.  The 
alignment  of  the  road  then  ceases  to  be  an  engineering 
problem,  but  is  determined  by  the  caprice  of  local  sen- 
timent, local  politics,  or  perhaps  less  worthy  means  of 
effecting  a  trade.  The  real  interests  of  the  towns  are 
protected  by  the  Board  of  Railroad  Commissioners; 


RAILROAD    MONOPOLY  27 

and  the  interests  of  the  residential  sections  and  the 
larger  estates,  usually  in  the  minority,  are  better  pro- 
tected by  a  State  Board.  The  interurban  roads,  there- 
fore, should  be  subject  to  the  control  of  the  Board  of 
Railroad  Commissioners  only.  Fourth,  it  is  absurd 
that  an  interurban  road  should  not  have  a  tenure  on 
its  own  land  and  over  its  own  bridges  equal  to  that  of 
the  railroads.  Fifth,  the  use  of  the  streets  should  be 
limited  to  exceptional  cases  only.  These,  then,  are  the 
cardinal  points  of  an  interurban  law,  for  public  safety 
and  rapid  transit:  private  right-of-way,  eminent  do- 
main, control  by  State  board  only,  tenure  not  revok- 
able,  limited  rights  on  the  streets. 

But  in  addition  to  these  points,  an  interurban  law 
must  include,  sooner  or  later,  certain  other  elements, 
on  account  of  public  policy  or  public  convenience. 
They  must  have  the  right  to  carry  freight.  This  would 
be  no  material  detriment  to  the  steam  railroads  because 
the  interurban  roads  could  make  but  little  use  of  it. 
It  would  be  an  obligation  as  much  as  a  privilege. 
There  would  be  no  competition  for  freight.  There 
is  no  prospect  that  long  freight  trains  can  ever  be 
hauled  as  economically  by  electricity  as  by  steam.  The 
long  freight  trains  could  not  be  hauled  over  the  grades 
that  would  occur  upon  a  properly  constructed  inter- 
urban road.  Moreover,  the  control  of  the  steam  rail- 
roads is  so  concentrated  that  it  would  not  be  possible 
for  a  new  railway  to  secure  any  participation  in  the 
through  freight  business.  There  is  nothing  in  a 
general  freight  business  for  the  interurban  roads. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  people  should  have  the 
right  to  insist  that  their  freight  be  taken  and  deliv- 
ered at  the  nearest  practical  point.  And  if  this 
happens  to  be  on  the  tracks  of  an  interurban  road, 
why  should  not  the  merchant  have  the  right  to  demand 
that  his  goods  be  delivered  here  at  the  same  freight 
rate,  thereby  saving  his  haul.  As  soon  as  a  suffi- 


28  PUBLIC    SAFETY   vs. 

ciently  aggravated  case  arises,  he  will  apply  for 
special  legislation  and  no  doubt  will  get  it.  The 
privilege  or  obligation,  as  you  choose  to  call  it,  to 
carry  freight  should  be  a  part  of  an  interurban  law. 
So  too  with  personal  baggage.  If  the  people  are  to 
travel  long  distances  on  the  interurban  roads,  sooner 
or  later  their  trunks  must  be  carried.  This  presents 
no  difficulties  in  practical  operation,  —  only  an  ordi- 
nary problem  to  solve.  Mail  and  express  are  now 
carried  by  the  street  railways.  They  all  should  be 
included  in  an  interurban  law.  Likewise,  in  organi- 
zation, capitalization,  corporate  functions,  responsi- 
bility for  damages  and  legal  actions,  relation  to  labor, 
etc.,  whatever  may  be  wise  and  in  accord  with  the 
best  public  policy,  should  apply  to  interurban  roads. 
Also  should  be  included  the  general  discretionary 
powers  of  the  Railroad  Commissioners  on  matters  of 
safety,  of  public  health  and  convenience:  such  as 
brakes,  sanders,  couplers,  whistles  and  bells,  safety 
devices,  shelters,  conveniences,  ventilation,  heating, 
and  in  general  all  the  details. 

The  elements  that  are  needed,  then  in  an  interurban 
law,  for  the  best  public  interest,  are:  private  right- 
of-way,  eminent  domain,  control  by  Railroad  Com- 
missioners only,  tenure  not  revokable,  limited  street 
rights,  freight,  personal  baggage,  mail  and  express, 
discretionary  powers  of  the  Railroad  Commissioners 
on  details,  and  the  obligations  and  restrictions  usually 
applicable  to  public-service  corporations.  And  it  is 
only  through  a  law  having  these  characteristics  that 
the  best  interests  of  the  public  —  in  public  safety, 
rapid  transit,  and  progress  —  will  be  obtained.  What 
is  this  but  the  general  railroad  law  as  it  exists  to-day? 
It  is  as  close  as  is  within  my  power  to  describe  it. 
Therefore,  provide  a  railroad  law  that  shall  be  suited 
best  for  railroads  in  general,  and  you  will  have  the 
proper  interurban  law. 


RAILROAD    MONOPOLY  29 

Railroad  Monopoly 

But  if  you  desire  to  secure  the  public  benefits  that 
the  interurban  roads  will  give,  it  is  not  sufficient 
simply  to  provide  the  wording  of  a  rational  law. 
The  intention  of  the  Legislature  must  be  clear,  other- 
wise the  words  may  result  in  nothing.  In  fact,  this 
is  what  would  be  most  likely  to  happen.  We  have 
in  Massachusetts  a  State  policy  toward  railroads,  and 
other  public-service  corporations,  which  is  known  as 
"  Monopoly  with  State  supervision."  The  State  sup- 
ports monopoly  and  supervises  it.  The  railroad 
monopoly  which  has  been  built  up  in  Massachusetts 
has  been  aided  by  this  State  policy.  Now  if  the  in- 
terurban roads  are  built  under  a  railroad  law  the 
present  railroad  monopoly  may  be  upset.  Therefore, 
the  intention  of  the  Legislature  should  be  clear.  The 
State's  policy  should  be  reaffirmed  or  revised. 

The  obvious  query  is :  Why,  in  times  when  monopoly 
seems  rampant  and  uncontrollable,  does  Massachu- 
setts actively  protect  it?  Why  this  State  aid?  The 
origin  of  the  idea  of  monopoly  with  State  supervi- 
sion lay  in  a  laudable  attempt  to  prevent  the  abuse 
of  capital  powrer.  Practices,  such  as  railroad  wreck- 
ing, —  that  is,  starting  to  build  a  new  railroad  directly 
parallel  to  an  established  line,  for  the  purpose  of 
ruining  it  and  forcing  its  sale,  —  were  methods  of 
competition  which  were  used  in  the  past  by  the 
powerful  capitalists  of  New  York,  —  notably,  Jay 
Gould.  It  was  to  protect  our  domestic  railroad  cor- 
porations from  unscrupulous  outside  competition  that 
the  State's  aid  was  first  granted.  It  was  to  prevent 
the  wasteful  duplication  of  investment  resulting  there- 
from that  the  public  would  have  to  support.  No 
doubt  it  has  been  of  great  public  service.  No  doubt 
it  has  prevented  wasteful  duplication. 

But  on  the  other  hand,  the  State  has  lost  from 


30  PUBLIC    SAFETY   vs. 

monopoly  as  well  as  gained.  Our  loss  is  the  lack  of 
the  stimulus  to  please  which  comes  with  competition. 
We  do  not  begin  to  have  the  railroad  service  in 
Massachusetts  that  we  find  in  other  States  where  there 
is  competition.  We  are  a  decade  behind  them.  Our 
finest  electric-lighted  trains,  recently  established,  are 
but  the  counterpart  of  trains  in  the  West  in  which 
I  rode  as  long  ago  as  1893.  New  England  is  used 
as  a  region  where  more  work  can  be  gotten  out  of 
cars  that  will  no  longer  attract  trade  in  the  West. 
Here,  the  people  ride  in  such  cars  as  the  railroads 
choose  to  run,  or  they  do  not  ride  at  all.  Old  cars, 
slow  trains,  long  waits  for  connections,  venerable 
railroad  restaurants,  and  other  antiquated  things,  are 
characteristics  of  New  England  railroad  service. 
The  stimulus  to  please,  which  competition  brings,  is 
lacking.  Progress  is  stagnant.  Thus  has  the  State 
paid. 

Whether  we  have  gained  on  the  whole  more  than 
we  have  lost  may  be  a  matter  of  opinion.  But  it 
must  be  obvious  to  everybody,  however,  that  the  con- 
ditions have  changed  since  the  time  when  supervised 
monopoly  originated.  When  there  were  many  inde- 
pendent roads  there  was  no  occasion  for  apprehen- 
sion that  more  might  not  come  when  needed.  There 
is  to-day  no  prospect  of  more  steam  railroads.  The 
control  of  the  railroads  throughout  the  country  is  so 
closely  held  that  it  would  not  be  possible  for  a  new 
steam  railroad  to  secure  the  freight  connections  neces- 
sary to  make  the  enterprise  profitable.  The  concen- 
tration of  railroad  control  is  increasing  each  year. 
Furthermore,  the  appreciation  of  land  values  in  the 
cities  has  made  the  expense  of  terminal  facilities  pro- 
hibitory. So  has  the  railroads'  position  strengthened. 
Moreover  the  need  for  monopoly  has  changed.  It 
is  just  as  desirable  as  it  ever  was  that  the  money 
intended  for  public  service  should  not  be  used  for 


RAILROAD    MONOPOLY  31 

unnecessary  and  wasteful  purposes.  But  all  compe- 
tition does  not  produce  wasteful  duplication.  And 
in  excluding  competition  that  does  produce  wasteful 
duplication,  it  is  not  necessary  to  foster  monopoly  by 
excluding  all  competition.  But  when  the  State's 
policy  of  Monopoly  was  originated,  there  were  in 
Massachusetts  a  number  of  small  railroads;  and  it 
was  undoubtedly  the  intention  to  protect  them  from 
the  aggressions  of  unscrupulous  capital.  Then,  our 
railroads  were  owned  and  controlled  at  home.  Now, 
while  the  nominal  ownership  can  be  variously  figured, 
it  is  common  knowledge  that  our  railroads  are  con- 
trolled in  New  York.  The  men  who  control  them 
are  the  large  capitalists  of  to-day.  They  are  the 
ones  who  have  arisen  to  take  the  place  of  the  very 
men  against  whose  power  this  policy  was  originated. 
So  it  has  come  about  that  under  the  guise  of  pre- 
venting wasteful  competition  the  State  now  is  aiding 
the  Morgans,  the  Vanderbilts,  the  Rockefellers  in 
their  monopolies.  Thus  have  the  conditions  changed. 
But  notwithstanding  the  enormous  power  that  the 
railroads  have  acquired,  and  the  enormous  capital 
power  with  which  they  are  allied,  they  are  ever  zeal- 
ous to  guard  what  they  have  now  come  to  consider 
as  a  vested  right,  —  the  State's  aid  in  their  monopoly. 
They  consider  that  the  transportation  business  be- 
longs to  them.  And  the  development  of  electric 
roads  —  always  unpopular  with  the  railroads,  in  pro- 
portion to  its  popularity  with  the  people  —  has  now 
reached  a  point  —  to  wit,  the  prospect  of  interurban 
roads  —  warranting  strenuous  measures.  So  the  rail- 
roads are  now  before  you  with  a  proposition  which 
virtually  means  the  extension  of  their  monopoly  to 
the  electric  railways.  It  is  this:  Why  should  not  the 
Boston  and  Maine  Railroad,  a  domestic  corporation, 
be  allowed  to  do  what  other  railroads,  foreign  corpo- 
rations, actually  are  doing  in  this  State,  namely,  own 


32  PUBLIC    SAFETY   vs. 

street  railways?  Not  that  the  Boston  and  Maine  has 
any  particular  street  railway  in  mind  that  it  wants  to 
own,  but  as  an  abstract  proposition,  Why  not?  Of 
course,  nothing  could  be  fairer.  But  only  slightly 
less  apparent,  there  lies  in  this  proposition  a  meaning 
not  so  reasonable.  It  says  in  effect :  —  We  would  like 
to  have  the  State,  out  of  sympathy  for  its  own  cor- 
poration, domestic  at  least  in  form,  legalize  the  other 
railroads  in  their  ownership  of  street  railways,  so  that 
there  may  be  no  doubt  about  it;  and  then,  by  secur- 
ing a  few  street  railways  as  strategic  points,  and 
relying  upon  the  State's  policy  of  monopoly,  thus 
given  added,  sanction,  we  shall  be  able  to  prevent  any 
further  competition  from  electric  railways,  and  espe- 
cially from  the  interurban  roads.  All  future  electric 
railway  development  would  be  subject  thereby  to  their 
pleasure.  This  proposition  seems  to  offer  a  more  ade- 
quate reason  for  the  strenuous  effort  which  we  have 
seen,  than  the  abstract  idea  first  stated. 

Now  if  the  State,  in  this  indirect  manner  or  other- 
wise, extends  the  railroad  monopoly  at  the  expense  of 
the  interurban  roads,  we  shall  pay  for  monopoly  far 
more  than,  through  the  lack  of  the  stimulus  of  com- 
petition, we  have  already  paid.  It  would  be,  virtu- 
ally throwing  away  the  opportunities  for  public 
safety,  rapid  transit,  and  the  general  public  good, 
which  the  interurban  road  offers.  Progress  on  the 
electric  railways  would  be  brought  into  the  same 
stagnant  condition  as  progress  on  the  steam  railroads 
in  this  State. 

The  case  of  the  interurban  road  is  analogous  to  the 
electric  light,  or  to  the  telephone.  It  would  have  been 
a  great  public  misfortune  if  electric  lighting  had  been 
suppressed  in  the  interest  of  Gas  Companies  which 
furnished  public  lighting.  It  would  have  been  a 
great  public  misfortune  if  the  telephone  had  been 
suppressed  just  because  the  Telegraph  Companies 


RAILROAD    MONOPOLY  33 

transmitted  messages  over  wires.  And  so  it  will  be 
a  great  public  misfortune  if  the  interurban  railways 
are  suppressed  just  because  the  railroads  are  furnish- 
ing transportation  over  steel  rails.  In  each  case, 
through  the  natural  trend  of  progress,  a  new  kind 
of  public  service  developed.  The  interurban  road 
now  offers  a  different  kind  of  transportation.  It  is 
absurd  to  say  that  the  interurban  roads  will  simply 
divide  the  business  of  the  steam  railroads.  If  the 
tracks  of  the  electric  railway  between  Boston  and 
Worcester  were  suddenly  taken  away,  would  their 
several  million  passengers  be  transferred  to  the  steam 
railroad?  Of  course  not.  The  great  mass  of  them 
would  not  ride.  They  did  not  ride  before  the  elec- 
tric road  was  built.  Neither  has  this  traffic  been  taken 
from  the  street  railways.  Nine-tenths  of  it  is  new 
traffic  created  by  giving  the  people  more  opportuni- 
ties for  riding.  The  attorney  for  the  Boston  and 
Maine  Railroad  argues :  — 

"...  Now,  whether  there  shall  be  a  duplication  or  redupli- 
cation of  capitalization  for  the  purpose  of  serving  the  same 
public  with  the  same  roads,  merely  dividing  the  business,  is 
a  question  .  .  .  "  l 

1  Extract  from  stenographic  report,  Vol.  3,  pp.  142-143.  Hearing  on  Rail- 
road and  Street  Railway  Laws,  before  Joint  Special  Committee  July  18-19, 
1905. 

MR.  COOLIDGE.  ...  It  seems  to  us  that  the  law  should  be  fixed,  and  that 
the  question  of  public  convenience  and  necessity  should  be  passed  upon  by 
the  Railroad  Commissioners.  It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  there  probably  is 
no  local  authority  that  will  not  say,  if  anybody  wants  to  .build  another  road, 
that  they  can  have  the  chance.  If  any  rival  road  desires  to  cut  into  an 
existing  street  railway's  business,  there  probably  is  no  local  authority  that 
would  not  say  :  Come  in,  and  we  will  give  you  a  chance.  And  if  there  were 
two  roads,  there  would  be  a  chance  to  get  a  third.  Now,  whether  there  shall 
be  a  duplication  or  reduplication  of  capitalization  for  the  purpose  of  serving 
the  same  public  with  the  same  roads,  merely  dividing  the  business,  is  a 
question  which  it  seems  to  us  has  now  got  to  the  point  where  the  legislature 
might  wisely  say  that  the  Railroad  Commissioners  should  first  pass  upon  the 
necessity  for  any  more  street  railway  accommodations,  or  any  more  railroad 
accommodations.  If  there  is  a  necessity,  then  an  existing  company  ought, 
if  it  can,  to  have  the  chance  of  providing  those  accommodations  ;  if  there  is 
no  necessity,  then  the  existing  company  ought  not  to  be  compelled  to  divide 


34  PUBLIC    SAFETY   vs. 

Such  an  argument  is  too  fatuous  for  the  intelligence 
of  the  ordinary  jury,  and  that  it  should  be  advanced 
before  a  legislative  committee  is  amazing. 

The  real  menace  of  the  railroads  to  public  service 
lies  not  so  much  in  the  fact  that  their  service  is  poorer 
here  than  elsewhere,  for  that  they  can  remedy  by 
improving  their  service;  but  rather  it  lies  in  their 
attitude  toward  the  interurban  road,  and  in  their  evi- 
dent desire  to  suppress  the  natural  development  of 
electric  railways.  When  they  take  the  attitude  that 
the  transportation  business  belongs  to  them,  and  con- 
sider the  development  of  electric  railways  an  invasion 
of  their  rights,  they  become  an  obstruction  in  the  path 
of  progress  as  much  as  ever  were  the  old  stage  coaches 
when  they  opposed  the  building  of  the  railroads.  The 
same  arguments  that  we  hear  now  by  the  railroads 
would  have  applied  equally  well  to  the  stage  coaches, 
and,  no  doubt,  were  used  at  that  time.  It  is  notorious 
that  by  means  of  their  purchases  of  street  railways, 
by  means  of  their  control  of  financial  institutions,  by 
means  of  the  financial  power  with  which  they  are 
allied,  by  means  of  their  influence  in  Legislatures,  the 
railroads  are  out  to  fight  any  development  that  may 
give  rise  to  competition  in  the  transportation  busi- 
ness. They  employ  a  corps  of  attorneys  for  this 
special  purpose.  Their  attitude  that  the  transporta- 
tion business  belongs  to  them  is  presented  clearly 

the  business  which  it  may  be  doing  reasonably  satisfactorily  with  somebody 
else  who  desires  to  get  into  the  territory,  either  for  the  purpose  of  running 
the  road  afterwards,  which  is  not  usually  the  case,  or  of  selling  the  road 
afterwards  to  the  existing  company.  And  we  think  the  law  should  be  fixed 
so  that  that  section  of  the  statutes  should  provide  first  that  there  should  be  a 
hearing  before  the  Railroad  Commissioners  for  them  to  pass  upon  the  ques- 
tion whether  there  is  a  public  convenience  and  necessity  for  any  more  road  ; 
if  they  say  there  is,  that  then  the  question  should  go  to  the  local  authorities 
for  them,  if  they  can,  to  fix  a  route  ;  if  they  cannot,  then  the  Railroad  Com- 
missioners should  have  the  power  to  fix  the  route  after  the  local  authorities 
have  tried,  within  three  months  or  six  months,  or  some  other  length  of  time 
that  may  be  fixed.  In  the  railroad  law  it  is  three  months  ;  and  then  it  al- 
lows the  Railroad  Commissioners  to  fix  that  route  for  the  railroad  if  the  local 
authorities  have  not  fixed  it 


RAILROAD    MONOPOLY  35 

enough  by  their  principal  spokesman,  the  attorney  for 
the  domestic  corporation, —  the  Boston  and  Maine. 
Several  times  he  has  laid  down  specifically  the  line 
of  action  that  the  railroads  expect  from  the  State; 
substantially  thus:  If  the  people  think  they  need  any 
more  transportation,  let  them  prove  it;  and  then  if 
it  really  is  a  public  necessity,  the  railroads  should 
be  allowed  to  provide  the  service,  if  they  want  to; 
and  if  they  don't  want  to,  then  somebody  else  may. 
What  could  be  plainer?  The  transportation  business 
belongs  to  us.  It  is  our  privilege  to  give  the  people 
what  transportation  they  need.  The  custodianship  of 
the  people's  needs  implied  in  this  attitude  of  the  rail- 
roads reminds  one  of  Mr.  Baer,  of  coal-strike  fame, 
with  this  difference:  Mr.  Baer  applied  his  principle 
of  Divine  Right  to  his  employees  only.  "  The  Chris- 
tian gentlemen,  in  whose  care  the  Lord  in  His  in- 
finite wisdom  has  placed  the  coal  properties,  will  see 
that  their  employees  are  properly  provided  for."  The 
railroad  beneficence  takes  in  the  whole  public.  If 
the  people  need  any  more  transportation  it  is  our 
privilege  to  supply  it,  if  they  can  prove  it,  and  if  we 
want  to.  This  is  a  guardianship  at  will,  indeed.  For 
whatever  gain  there  has  been  from  monopoly  the 
people  have  paid  well,  and  will  pay  more  if  mo- 
nopoly is  extended.  Is,  then,  the  railroads'  claim  to 
State  aid  in  their  monopoly  justified?  Perhaps  the 
comment  of  Mr.  Hapgood,  recently  in  Collier's,  may 
illuminate  this  point :  — 

"...  A  railway  is  a  thing  peculiarly  requiring  regula- 
tion. It  ought  to  be  a  monopoly  to  prevent  wasteful  duplica- 
tion, and  yet  unless  there  is  competition  the  roads  will  treat  the 
people  like  so  much  dirt.  Compare  the  rival  services  between 
Chicago  and  New  York  with  the  performances  of  a  fat  monop- 
oly like  the  Boston  and  Maine,  which  owns  legislatures  and 
with  impunity  maltreats  the  public  in  every  known  way.  ..." 
—  Collier's,  July  15,  1905,  p.  6. 


36  PUBLIC    SAFETY   vs. 

Railroad  monopoly  in  Massachusetts  distinctly  has 
outlived  its  usefulness. 

But  if  we  are  to  revise  our  policy  of  monopoly, 
what  shall  it  be?  Unrestrained  competition  offers 
corresponding  opportunities  for  abuse.  What  we 
really  want  in  our  railways  is  the  greatest  progress. 
If  there  is  a  public  need,  let  the  people  prove  it. 
That  is  monopoly,  and  progress  becomes  stagnant. 
Competition  searches  out  a  public  need  and  proves  it 
to  the  people.  And  the  result  is  progress.  We  want 
the  stimulus  of  competition,  but  not  its  destructive 
methods,  and  not  its  wasteful  duplication.  We  want 
to  encourage  all  honest  industry.  Let  the  State  then 
encourage  all  honest  industry,  and  protect  it  from  the 
abuse  of  capital  power,  whether  it  be  from  excessive 
competition,  or  from  excessive  monopoly.  Let  the 
State  intercede,  through  its  police  power,  to  prevent 
wasteful  competition,  —  railroad,  wrecking,  rate  wars, 
rebates,  and  like  abuses.  But  let  us  have  a  sufficient 
honest  competition  in  our  railways  to  give  us  progress, 
at  least  equal  to  the  progress  that  we  see  around  us. 
Let  us  have  Competition  with  State  Supervision.  By 
such  definition  of  the  State's  policy  hangs  the  fate 
of  the  interurban  roads  under  a  railroad  law. 

We  have  now  been  over  at  some  length  the  main 
features  of  the  interurban  railway,  and  the  relation 
of  the  railroad  and  street-railway  laws  to  it.  The  in- 
terurban road,  running  straight  and  free  from  blind 
curves,  offers  greater  possibilities  than  we  have  yet 
known  for  public  safety  and  rapid  transit.  If  you 
force  the  interurban  roads  to  develop  under  a  street- 
railway  law,  you  reduce  these  possibilities  to  the  level 
of  the  street  railways.  Under  a  railroad  law  the  pos- 
sibilities rise  above  the  steam  railroads.  Let  us  hope, 
therefore,  that  when  your  thoughts  turn  to  street- 
railway  laws,  the  subject  of  street-railway  accidents 


RAILROAD    MONOPOLY  37 

will  absorb  your  whole  attention.     There  is  a  field 
worthy  of  your  greatest  effort. 

In  the  important  matter  of  the  interurban  roads  — 
far-reaching  in  its  significance  to  the  prosperity  of 
the  State  —  let  us  hope  also  that  you  will  not  seek 
merely  the  path  of  least  resistance.  It  is  not  a  ques- 
tion of  what  is  most  practical  in  harmonizing  the  in- 
terests and  demands  of  the  railroads,  street  railways, 
syndicates,  etc.,  who  may  be  before  you,  but  rather, 
in  what  way  is  public  safety  most  practical?  Let 
your  standard  of  practical  legislation  be,  to  secure 
the  obvious  public  benefits  which  hang  before  you. 
If  the  Legislature  does  not  do  this,  —  if  it  does  not 
by  proper  laws  make  possible  the  highest  degree  of 
public  safety,  —  will  it  not,  in  fact,  be  guilty  of  more 
than  contributory  negligence?  Let  us  see.  We  know 
that  the  engineer  in  the  cab  habitually  runs  blind. 
He  is  forced  to  do  this  by  the  conditions  under  which 
he  must  work.  He  must  bring  his  trains  in  on  time. 
A  thousand  times  he  passes  the  curves  in  safety.  On 
the  next  trip  he  misinterprets  an  order;  smoke  from 
a  passing  train  obscures  a  signal;  perhaps  for  the 
moment  he  forgets  its  location ;  he  is  late  and  striving 
to  make  up  time.  He  has  made  an  ordinary  human 
mistake.  As  he  rounds  a  curve,  suddenly  the  other 
train  appears.  If  he  could  have  seen  around  that 
curve,  —  if  there  had  been  no  curve,  —  he  would 
have  had  time  to  stop.  If  there  had  been  a  block- 
signal  system,  stopping  his  train  automatically,  he 
would  have  been  held  up  a  mile  or  so  back.  Now,  it 
is  too  late.  Invariably  he  sticks  to  his  post  and  does 
his  best  to  save  the  train.  If  he  lives,  they  arrest  him. 
Now  I  say  if  the  Legislature  does  not  do  its  best,  — 
if  it  neglects  to  provide  proper  laws  to  make  public 
safety  possible,  —  if  the  railroad  directors,  in  laying 
out  and  equipping  their  roads,  do  not  do  their  best, 
—  if  they  neglect  obvious  measures  for  safety,  — 


38  PUBLIC    SAFETY   vs. 

then,  at  least,  let  not  the  engineer,  who  has  done  his 
best,  be  used  as  a  shield. 

The  whole  interest  of  the  community  demands  your 
action  favorable  to  the  interurban  road,  —  to  secure 
Public  Safety,  Rapid  Transit,  and  Progress.  No 
assumed  rights  of  the  railroads  should  be  allowed  to 
stand  in  the  way.  Your  action  is  clear.  The  in- 
terurban law  should  be  a  railroad  law.  Therefore, 
provide  a  railroad  law  that  will  be  best  suited  for 
railroads  in  general;  and  transform  the  obstructing 
State  policy  of  supervised  monopoly  into  a  fairer 
and  more  stimulating  policy, —  Competition  with 
State  Supervision. 


ADDENDA 

REPORTS  OF  THE  MAJORITY  AND  MINORITY  OF  THE  COM- 
MITTEE ON  STREET  RAILWAYS  OF  THE  1905  LEGISLATURE 

SENATE,  May  3,  1905. 

THE  committee  on  Street  Railways,  to  whom  were  referred 
the  petitions  (here  follows  recital  of  petitions),  submit  the 
accompanying  report :  — 

Of  the  above  petitions,  two  are  for  general  legislation 
authorizing  street-railway  companies  to  acquire  private  land 
or  rights  of  way  by  contract  or  by  eminent  domain  and  oper- 
ate railways  thereon.  The  others  are  for  special  legislation, 
and  originally  involved  schemes  for  four  different  electric 
roads  to  Providence.  One,  described  at  the  hearings  as  the 
"  SHAW  "  road,  was  intended  to  start  in  Brookline  and  pass 
through  certain  towns  to  the  Rhode  Island  line,  and  end  in 
the  city  of  Providence.  Two  others,  called  at  the  hearings 
the  "  BLOOD  "  road  and  the  "  KIDDER-PEABODY  "  road, 
were  planned  to  start  from  some  point  in  Boston  and  end  in 
Providence.  These  three  roads  were  indicated  on  plans  as 
located  westerly  of  the  Boston  and  Providence  Railroad ;  and 
.since  the  petitions  were  filed  all  three  have  united  their  interests, 


RAILROAD    MONOPOLY  39 

and  now  desire  rights  to  be  given  to  the  KIDDER-PEABODY 
road  only.  The  fourth  proposed  railway  to  Providence  was 
the  existing  Blue  Hill  Avenue  street  railway,  which  is  already 
in  operation  and  extends  from  Boston  about  one-half  the  dis- 
tance to  the  Rhode  Island  line,  and  desires  to  continue  its  road 
from  its  present  terminus  in  East  Sharon  to  Providence.  This 
railway  was  called  at  the  hearings  the  "  STONE  AND  WEB- 
STER "  road,  who  claimed  to  have  expended  six  hundred  and 
fifty  thousand  dollars  on  the  line  already,  and  is  located 
easterly  of  the  Boston  and  Providence  Railroad. 

The  only  element  in  the  above  petitions  that  is  really  vital 
(for  other  positions  taken  at  the  hearings  appear  to  have 
been  abandoned)  is  the  grant  of  the  right  to  operate  electric 
cars  on  private  land,  and  to  acquire  land  therefor  by  eminent 
domain  if  necessary.  With  those  rights  given  the  present 
general  street-railway  laws  are  ample,  and  such  rights  can 
easily  be  secured  by  the  change  of  a  few  words  in  the  existing 
general  law ;  but  some  of  the  petitioners  for  special  rights  at 
the  hearings,  and  since,  avowedly  oppose  such  a  general  law, 
desiring  to  obtain  such  rights  exclusively,  and  all  object  to 
having  such  exclusive  right  given  to  a  competitor.  It  should 
be  added  that  both  the  remaining  applicants  for  special  legis- 
lation appear  to  be  in  earnest  in  the  desire  to  construct  a  road 
to  Providence,  and  to  have  ample  means  for  that  purpose. 

Without  going  into  the  question  of  the  equities  between 
these  two  competitors,  inasmuch  as  there  is  nothing  peculiar 
in  this  Boston  and  Providence  situation  which  does  not  apply 
equally  elsewhere  in  the  Commonwealth,  it  seems  to  the  com- 
mittee that  the  public  interest  will  be  better  served  by  a  gen- 
eral act  than  by  a  special  act.  Section  7  of  the  joint  rules 
provides  as  follows :  —  Whenever,  upon  any  application  for 
an  act  of  incorporation  or  other  legislation,  the  purpose  for 
which  such  legislation  is  sought  can  be  secured  without  detri- 
ment to  the  public  interests  by  a  general  law  or  under  existing 
laws,  the  committee  to  which  the  matter  is  referred  shall  report 
such  general  law,  or  "  leave  to  withdraw,"  or  "  ought  not  to 
pass." 

Rule  30  of  the  House  and  Rule  16  of  the  Senate  are  to  the 
same  effect,  and  make  it  the  duty  of  committees  to  report  gen- 
eral acts  rather  than  special  acts  if  essentially  the  same  result 


40  PUBLIC    SAFETY   vs. 

can  be  attained  thereby.  These  rules  recognize  the  evils  of 
special  legislation ;  and  there  is  no  form  of  special  legislation 
more  objectionable  than  the  granting  to  individuals  of  char- 
ters or  special  rights  which  have  a  money  value,  from  the  bene- 
fit of  which  the  rest  of  the  community  are  excluded.  Only  five 
of  the  United  States  permit  the  granting  of  charters  by  special 
laws ;  and  in  this  Commonwealth  the  tendency  to  accomplish 
desired  results  by  general  enactments,  rendering  all  our  citi- 
zens equal  before  the  law,  is  a  growing  tendency,  and  has 
been  emphasized  by  many  executive  vetoes,  one  during  the 
present  session.  The  general  laws  for  the  formation  of  rail- 
road companies  have  for  many  years  made  special  acts  in  that 
field  unnecessary;  and  the  general  laws  relating  to  street- 
railway  companies  would  be  equally  complete  if  their  cars 
were  operated  on  the  public  streets  only.  The  time  has  now 
come  through  the  progress  of  invention  that  electric  cars  can 
be  operated  to  the  advantage  of  the  public  at  certain  points 
on  private  land,  thus  abridging  distance,  saving  time,  and 
avoiding  accidents;  and  in  the  opinion  of  the  committee  the 
right  so  to  do  should  be  granted  by  general  law  under  proper 
safeguards.  There  even  may  be  cases  where  electric  roads 
can  be  constructed  with  advantage  which  do  not  run  longi- 
tudinally in  the  public  streets  at  all,  where  the  expense  of  the 
ordinary  steam  railroad  would  not  be  justified.  A  number 
of  such  roads  exist  in  the  western  States,  and  all  are  locally 
regarded  as  railroads,  and  are  constructed  and  operated  under 
general  railroad  laws.  Such  roads,  however,  in  this  State, 
would  not  necessarily  perform  all  the  duties  of  our  steam 
roads,  and  in  that  case  ought  not  to  be  required  to  conform 
to  all  our  general  statutes  relating  to  railroads,  as,  for  illus- 
tration, the  compulsory  carrying  of  milk  and  bicycles;  and 
it  is  for  this  reason  that  we  recommend  that  adequate  provi- 
sion be  made  for  them  under  our  general  street-railway  laws 
instead.  With  such  provision  for  the  acquisition  and  use  of 
private  lands  or  rights  of  way,  any  such  railway  can  be  con- 
structed and  operated  without  its  promoter  coming  to  the 
Legislature  at  all ;  and  all  our  citizens  would  then  be  on  an 
equality  so  far  as  the  law  is  concerned,  and  all  questions  would 
be  passed  upon  by  the  local  authorities  and  the  board  of  rail- 
road commissioners,  and  that  is  where  such  questions  belong. 


RAILROAD    MONOPOLY  41 

The  avoidance  of  special  legislation  upon  matters  of  this 
kind  would  greatly  lessen  the  length  of  our  sessions  and  the 
labors  of  an  overburdened  Legislature.  The  committee  can- 
not forbear  to  add  that  it  would  greatly  lessen  the  evils  of 
lobbying.  By  this  we  do  not  mean  to  criticize  individuals. 
The  fault  is  inherent  in  the  system.  So  long  as  exclusive  priv- 
ileges can  be  obtained  from  the  Legislature  and  human  nature 
remains  unchanged,  both  the  parties  seeking  such  privileges, 
and  competitors  who  believe  they  will  be  injured  if  such  privi- 
leges are  granted,  will  seek  to  influence  legislation;  and  their 
zeal  will  sometimes  be  excessive,  and  not  contribute  to  the 
common  weal  or  the  calm  and  impartial  judgment  of  the 
legislator.  When  railroads  and  street  railways  were  new,  and 
we  had  neither  general  laws  on  the  subject  nor  a  board  of  rail- 
road commissioners,  this  kind  of  special  legislation  was  neces- 
sary ;  but  in  the  opinion  of  the  committee  that  time  has  passed 
by  so  far  as  relates  to  those  two  forms  of  enterprise. 

The  change  in  the  street-railway  laws  which  will  give  the 
necessary  powers  of  eminent  domain  can  be  effected  by  adding 
five  words  near  the  beginning  of  the  first  section  of  chapter 
476,  Acts  of  1903,  and  omitting  seven  words  near  the  end  of 
the  same  sentence,  as  shown  in  the  accompanying  bill.  The 
remainder  of  said  first  section,  and  sections  2  and  3  will  remain 
unchanged,  and  fully  protect  the  rights  of  all  parties  inter- 
ested, as  well  as  the  general  public.  With  the  suggested 
change  in  the  first  section,  the  fourth  section  of  said  act  be- 
comes inappropriate,  and  should  be  repealed. 

Believing  that  the  time  has  come  when  the  propriety  of 
operating  electric  cars  on  a  private  right  of  way,  and  making 
use  of  eminent  domain  for  that  purpose  where  necessary  under 
proper  safeguards,  should  be  frankly  recognized  and  provided 
for,  the  committee  earnestly  recommend  the  passage  of  the 
accompanying  bill. 


Senate  Document  No.  341. 


Signed  by  eight  members  of 
the  committee. 


42  PUBLIC    SAFETY   vs. 


VIEWS  OF  A  MINORITY  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  STREET  RAIL- 
WAYS ON  THE  SEVERAL  REQUESTS  FOR  LEGISLATION  TO 
PROMOTE  THE  CONSTRUCTION  OF  AN  ELECTRIC  RAILWAY 
BETWEEN  BOSTON  AND  PROVIDENCE 

THE  several  petitions  upon  which  the  majority  and  minor- 
ity reports  of  the  committee  on  Street  Railways  are  based 
involve  requests  for  legislation  to  promote  the  construction 
of  an  electric  railway  between  Boston  and  Providence.  Tes- 
timony of  selectmen  and  other  citizens  of  the  towns  through 
which  such  road  would  pass  was  heard,  and  it  was  ample  and 
convincing  that  there  is  a  public  demand  for  its  construction. 
In  fact,  this  evidence  stands  uncontradicted.  It  is  also  well 
established  that  the  existing  general  law  is  not  adequate  for 
such  purpose.  The  demand  is  for  an  electric  road,  operated 
at  a  high  rate  of  speed,  and  necessarily  located  for  the  most 
part  outside  the  limits  of  public  ways,  and  furnishing  reason- 
ably rapid  transportation  at  about  one-half  steam-railroad 
rates.  The  existing  general  law  does  not  provide  for  the 
building  of  such  a  road.  There  was  no  evidence  before  your 
committee  of  any  demand  for  a  similar  road  elsewhere  in  the 
Commonwealth. 

At  the  outset  four  sets  of  petitioners  sought  for  special  acts 
of  incorporation,  but  these  finally  resolved  themselves  into  two 
propositions.  First,  the  STONE  AND  WEBSTER  propo- 
sition involving  a  terminus  at  the  Dudley  Street  station  of 
the  Boston  Elevated,  the  use  of  the  Blue  Hill  Street  Railway 
as  a  link  in  the  system,  and  a  route  lying  east  of  the  New 
York,  New  Haven  &  Hartford  Railroad,  through  East  Provi- 
dence to  Providence.  The  minority  of  the  committee  are  con- 
vinced that  this  route  could  never  meet  the  demand  that  exists 
for  a  fast  line,  and  would  utterly  fail  to  accommodate  the 
most  populous  towns  lying  between  Boston  and  Providence. 

The  second  proposition,  known  as  the  GASTON,  POWERS, 

AND  SHAW  route,  has  for  its  terminus  the  Forest  Hills 

station  of  the  Boston  Elevated,  and  is  located  westerly  of 

.  the  steam  road  and  passes  through  North  Attleborough  and 

Attleborough  and  Pawtucket  to  Providence. 

Such  a  route,  located  mainly  upon  private  land,  with  grade 


RAILROAD    MONOPOLY  43 

crossings  eliminated,  could  be  operated  at  a  high  speed  with 
safety,  and  would  fully  meet  the  recognized  demands  of  the 
communities  lying  between  Boston  and  Providence.  It  would 
also  best  serve  the  purpose  of  a  through  electric  railway 
between  these  two  cities. 

The  minority  of  the  committee  are,  therefore,  of  the  opinion 
that  special  legislation  is  warranted  to  meet  this  special  need, 
and  therefore  recommend  the  passage  of  the  accompanying 
bill.  [See  Senate,  No.  351.]  The  majority  of  the  committee, 
not  denying  these  conclusions,  recommend  general  legislation 
to  meet  this  special  case.  The  objections  to  a  general  law  for 
this  purpose  are  several:  first,  there  was  no  request  for  a 
general  law  except  from  the  representatives  of  the  railroads, 
who  view  the  building  of  such  a  road  as  the  creation  of  com- 
petition to  be  suppressed  in  its  inception;  second,  the  Legis- 
lature has  steadfastly  refused  the  general  right  of  eminent 
domain  to  street  railways  in  the  past,  and  there  is  no  evidence 
of  any  change  in  its  policy;  third,  it  is  doubtful  policy  to 
frame  a  general  law  to  meet  a  special  need.  The  minority 
of  the  committee,  therefore,  urge  the  substitution  of  the  spe- 
cial act  for  the  following  reasons :  — 

First.  It  is  in  line  with  the  policy  heretofore  established 
of  granting  eminent  domain  to  street  railways  only  in  special 
cases. 

Second.  It  is  the  only  practicable  method  of  meeting  a 
great  public  demand,  without  considering  the  extreme  proba- 
bility of  the  failure  of  the  proposed  general  act  to  become  a 
law.  Recent  street-railway  history  exemplifies  the  hazards  of 
attempting  to  construct  an  interurban  electric  road  under 
general  laws,1  especially  with  railroad  opposition. 

Third.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  Legislature  to  recognize  the 
expressed  wish  of  these  communities,  and  give  them  a  legis- 
lative act  which  will  adequately  meet  the  demand. 

Fourth.  The  proposed  special  act  is  in  harmony  with 
existing  law;  it  delegates  to  the  local  boards  the  power  of 
fixing  the  route  over  private  land  as  well  as  over  public  ways ; 
it  requires  the  concurrent  approval  of  the  Board  of  Railroad 
Commissioners,  who  must  at  the  outset  certify  that  public 
convenience  and  necessity  require  the  construction  of  the  road- 
1  Street-Railway  Laws. 


44  RAILROAD    MONOPOLY 

The  rights  of  the  public  are  thoroughly  safeguarded.  The 
right  of  eminent  domain  cannot  be  exercised  except  by  author- 
ity of  the  selectmen  and  with  the  approval  of  the  Railroad 
Commissioners.  Grade  crossings  must  be  eliminated,  and  the 
road  must  bear  the  whole  expense. 

Believing,  as  we  do,  that  the  proposed  road  is  substan- 
tially a  new  development  in  electric  roads,  not  anticipated  by 
existing  law,  that  its  construction  will  satisfy  an  admitted 
public  demand,  we  recommend  appropriate  legislation  which 
in  good  faith  contemplates  the  actual  construction  and  opera- 
tion of  such  a  road. 


Senate  Document  No.  350. 


Signed  by  seven  members  of 
the  committee. 


BEEKELEY 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 

Books  not  returned  on  time  are  subject  to  a  fine  of 

QT^TPT^'G^'P         50c  per  volume  after  the  third  day  overdue,  increasing 
O  i  IV.Ctf.Crf  JL          to  $1.00  per  volume  after  the  sixth  day.     Books  not  in 
-          demand  may  be  renewed  if  application  is  made  before 
II         expiration  of  loan  period. 


Sooc 


10QQ 


<S7 


OCT 


ET 
VAY 


ROAD 


YEAR 

Red  Line  shows  RAILROAD  Accidents 


